miz3 Posted July 2, 2011 Author Posted July 2, 2011 I cannot prove Mary Magdalene was the author of John but I think she could be a reasonable hypothesis. Much more investigation would be needed for such proof. I also agree that Lazarus is also a reasonable candidate. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 I cannot prove Mary Magdalene was the author of John but I think she could be a reasonable hypothesis. Much more investigation would be needed for such proof. I also agree that Lazarus is also a reasonable candidate. I sent you the site so you could read the whole ebook as I am sure you will be excited as i was at first. The book is free and it should not take too much time to read it. We talked about it live today on our show called "The Bible On Trial" at www.blogtalkradio.com/sot It was archived so you can listen at any time. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 2, 2011 Moderators Posted July 2, 2011 Is that the book-- The Spirit of the Church-- which teaches, among other nonsensical stuff, that it was Satan who inspired Peter and the other disciples on the day of Pentecost? An idea that is based on the unnecessary misunderstanding of the number of a Greek noun-- beleiving it is singular when in fact it is plural-- "tongues," NOT "tongue." Doesn't it also teach that Paul was possessed by a demon, and that about 2/3 of the NT are books written by Satan's servants? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Rich Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich Is that the book-- The Spirit of the Church-- which teaches' date=' among other nonsensical stuff, that it was Satan who inspired Peter and the other disciples on the day of Pentecost? An idea that is based on the unnecessary misunderstanding of the number of a Greek noun-- beleiving it is singular when in fact it is plural-- "tongues," NOT "tongue." Doesn't it also teach that Paul was possessed by a demon, and that about 2/3 of the NT are books written by Satan's servants? [/quote'] No Jim, it isn't. But I also object to your own opinion about the book called "The Spirit of the Church", as your 'book report' was totally inaccurate! But YOU WERE warned not to read it in the first few pages of this book--right? Huh? Right there in black and white is a warning that NO ONE should read the book IF they have built their foundation upon anyone's words (including Paul and EGW) other than the words of Jesus Christ and Him only! So don't blame me for your own understanding of the book! Quote
Guest Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 No Jim, it isn't. But I also object to your own opinion about the book called "The Spirit of the Church", as your 'book report' was totally inaccurate! But YOU WERE warned not to read it in the first few pages of this book--right? Huh? Right there in black and white is a warning that NO ONE should read the book IF they have built their foundation upon anyone's words (including Paul and EGW) other than the words of Jesus Christ and Him only! So don't blame me for your own understanding of the book! What hogwash! Honestly Rich, you are too smart to believe the nonsense in that book, and that you try to preach. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. I guess I should say, "I wish you were too smart". John317 and myself have proven it wrong for you many many times, but the devil has you locked in somehow. What a pity. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich No Jim, it isn't. But I also object to your own opinion about the book called "The Spirit of the Church", as your 'book report' was totally inaccurate! But YOU WERE warned not to read it in the first few pages of this book--right? Huh? Right there in black and white is a warning that NO ONE should read the book IF they have built their foundation upon anyone's words (including Paul and EGW) other than the words of Jesus Christ and Him only! So don't blame me for your own understanding of the book! What hogwash! Honestly Rich, you are too smart to believe the nonsense in that book, and that you try to preach. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. I guess I should say, "I wish you were too smart". John317 and myself have proven it wrong for you many many times, but the devil has you locked in somehow. What a pity. Some day soon we will see who has the last laugh! I can't take that bet that you are willing to take. My money is on the words of Jesus and Him only! Since He told us to do do this, I will obey Him and keep all of the commandments AND hold fast to His testimony which is the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, NOT Paul's gospel. By the way Richard, have you read "The Spirit of the Church" yet? If so, what did you find wrong with it? If you found anything, can you prove it wrong by using the words of Jesus? Nope, you can't do this at all. The only thing you can do is give your OWN opinion, which is worthless. And you have NEVER proven the book wrong by using the words of Jesus Christ! So please don't go testifying falsly as that is a violation of one of the ten commandments. Quote
Guest Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Some day soon we will see who has the last laugh! I wasn't laughing. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich Some day soon we will see who has the last laugh! I wasn't laughing. And gnashing your teeth is not laughing either. Quote
miz3 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Posted July 4, 2011 Dr. Rich, I am almost through reading the "Book on the Fourth Gospel" that you suggested. I am still mulling things over but the author makes a plausible case on first blush! I may have more to say later about this. It is certainly not off the deep end stuff! One of the things I am thinking about is, is it really vital for us to know who the author actually is? Is being conversant in the text of the Gospel enough and the authorship irrelevant? Maybe yes, maybe no? Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Dr. Rich, I am almost through reading the "Book on the Fourth Gospel" that you suggested. I am still mulling things over but the author makes a plausible case on first blush! I may have more to say later about this. It is certainly not off the deep end stuff! One of the things I am thinking about is, is it really vital for us to know who the author actually is? Is being conversant in the text of the Gospel enough and the authorship irrelevant? Maybe yes, maybe no? Good question. What matters is that the author was an eyewitness and Lazarus was probably the closest eyewitness I would think. After all, he was the only one who stayed with Jesus during His trial and death, and the first one at the grave site. It was my idea that Jesus didn't choose him as an apostle because of his duties with Mary, Martha and family. But he was the closest disciple than anyone else, that's for sure. I bought the book so I can read it over again as there were a couple things I too had questions on. Quote
Gustave Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto. [EGW] Gal 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." John 15:10 "I [Jesus] have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." What Paul wrote in Gal. 5:14 is clearly a lie, but for those who have never even bothered to read it themselves, they take what Paul said as the truth. Paul intended to leave out the first four Commandments on purpose. Why, because Paul's god was not the one who established this covenant. What? I'm not following you. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Gustave, huh? then read Rev. 2:2 and perhaps you will see why Paul said what he did in 2Tim.1:15. Paul's god was Satan, and that is why Paul twice left out the first four commandments of God when writing about them. What Jesus warned about many times and prophesied about in the wheat and the tares was totally true. both the wheat and weeds have looked the same for over 2,000 years because the catholic church hid the truth from all of us by picking Paul's writings as the gospel that is the foundation for the Catholic church. Jesus never came to this earth to start a new religion. Jesus' gospel was about the Kingdom of Heaven, not Himself. Quote
miz3 Posted July 5, 2011 Author Posted July 5, 2011 Jesus' gospel was about the Kingdom of Heaven, not Himself. The eyewitnesses say differently. Jesus Christ is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is not some separate entity. Did not Jesus say that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life. You can't get any more Kingdom of Heaven than that! Jesus Christ is the Gospel. The Gospel is not some separate entity apart from God and Jesus Christ. Again, I would refer you to the cited words of Jesus Christ, Himself I just made! Quote
Gustave Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Gustave, huh? then read Rev. 2:2 and perhaps you will see why Paul said what he did in 2Tim.1:15. Paul's god was Satan, and that is why Paul twice left out the first four commandments of God when writing about them. Quote
Gustave Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Jesus never came to this earth to start a new religion Has the Book of St Matthew also made your 'hit list' of false teachings? ...The following looks like Jesus intended to start a new Religion to me. Matthew 28,18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen Once you compare it with what Jesus said prior to His 'fulfilling ALL things'. Matthew 23,1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. That's sounds like a new Religion was what God had in mind to me.... ....Of course that wouldn't go over very well with a Jew who rejected Christ. Would you classify yourself as an Ebionite? Ebionite Statement of Faith We want everyone to know immediately that the Ebionites are not Christians or messianics. Jesus of Nazareth is/was not the messiah, a savior, or part of a godhead. Thinking so is evil and blasphemy. His teachings do not constitute a new or different way to God. It is our goal to show that Judaism is the religion of God, and that worshiping Jesus is a grave sin, but also there is no historically legitimate reason for Christianity. Christian religion was never the intention of Jesus. We see Christianity as a horribly evil religion The Ebionite Community is the living continuation of the Jewish religious movement of Jesus. Christianity is the religion of Paul and others, and not part of the biblical faith and revelation of the God of Israel nor is it of Jesus. (Please note that we have used "Jesus" to clarify for our Christian readers. We call him Yeshua or Yahshua, and will use Yeshua from this point on in the site.) We declare the man Paul of Tarsus, the false teacher against the mark of Covenant and God's Torah, to be outside of the Way taught by Yeshua, the anointed, son of Maria and Yosef. The Ebionite Community is the only real "mission to the gentiles." We call upon the gentiles to repent, to abandon paganism and the perverse testament, and enter into true covenant through Torah, circumcision, and immersion in order to submit and prepare for the Reign of God as brothers exhibiting good works. (How can you talk about accepting God or His "kingdom" at some future event or time if you reject His rules clearly given now?) It always pays to be Catholic.... ...The heretical teachings just jump out at ya. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I class myself as one who keeps all of the commandments and holds to the words (testimony) of Jesus Christ ONLY, as one found in Rev. 12:17. Those are the ones who will be called the first fruits and will be at war with those who make fun of these people, those who refuse to obey the words of God and Jesus Christ. Ever notice that Jesus sent ONLY His disciples out to have them teach people to OBSERVE everything that Jesus said and taught and to baptize them? Ever notice that Paul NEVER DID DO THIS? Hmmmm? Jesus came to this earth to testify to the truth, which are the words of the Father. This is NOT a new religion, as Jesus instructed HIS disciples to do the same thing. Have you ever noticed that I am doing the same thing as the disciples--telling people to read the words of Jesus Christ and in Him ONLY and then obey those words? Huh? This is NOT a new religion at all! It is the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. The New Religion that Paul invented is that one is saved by grace and one becomes righteous by faith. Paul called it the gospel of Jesus. This is [wrong ed.]. [Words edited by the moderator.] Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Luke wrote the book of Acts and Luke was not an eyewitness, nor a disciple of Jesus Christ. He was a disciple of Paul's as he was converted by Paul. Luke wrote his books for one purpose and that was to get the officials in Rome to know that their religion was not a threat to them--and it worked as Rome adopted the words of Paul as their foundational beliefs. Acts has the Holy Spirit coming at Pentacost but John's gospel has Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit upon the the disciples. Matthew has Jesus telling the disciples to go to Galilee and wait for Him, but Luke has the discples going to Jerusalem. Hmmm? Lukes gospel has many more stories than does the other gospels. Like the thief who asked Jesus to remember him. The other gospels have the two thieves cursing Jesus all the time till Jesus died? So who is correct? The eyewitnesses or Luke? Quote
Gustave Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I class myself as one who keeps ALL of the commandments and holds to the words (testimony) of Jesus Christ ONLY, as one found in Rev. 12:17. Those are the ones who will be called the first fruits and will be at war with those who make fun of these people, those who refuse to obey the words of God and Jesus Christ. Quote
Gustave Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Luke wrote the book of Acts and Luke was not an eyewitness, nor a disciple of Jesus Christ. He was a disciple of Paul's as he was converted by Paul. Luke wrote his books for one purpose and that was to get the officials in Rome to know that their religion was not a threat to them--and it worked as Rome adopted the words of Paul as their foundational beliefs. Acts has the Holy Spirit coming at Pentacost but John's gospel has Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit upon the the disciples. Matthew has Jesus telling the disciples to go to Galilee and wait for Him, but Luke has the discples going to Jerusalem. Hmmm? Lukes gospel has many more stories than does the other gospels. Like the thief who asked Jesus to remember him. The other gospels have the two thieves cursing Jesus all the time till Jesus died? So who is correct? The eyewitnesses or Luke? Perhaps it would serve the purpose of discussion if you simply told me.... ...What New Testament Books you consider valid. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 5, 2011 Moderators Posted July 5, 2011 ...Perhaps in Prot land it is........However in Catholicism AND Eastern Orthodoxy that's NOT what they affirm Paul taught. Dr. Rich's views on this as well as on many other topics is contrary to the SDA church, Ellen White, and the Bible. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Genuine faith in Christ is manifested in the keeping of God's commandments. Are you Catholic? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Gustave Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave ...Perhaps in Prot land it is........However in Catholicism AND Eastern Orthodoxy that's NOT what they affirm Paul taught. Dr. Rich's views on this as well as on many other topics is contrary to the SDA church, Ellen White, and the Bible. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Genuine faith in Christ is manifested in the keeping of God's commandments. Are you Catholic? Dr. Rich appears to be a form of Ebionite, an early heresy of the Church.... ...Which believed St. Paul to have been an imposter working for 'the enemy'. ...They believe in observing feast days and a mish-mash of Jewish liturgical services. Yes, I'm a Latin Rite Catholic. Ebionites also believed that Paul was crafty enough to even fool St. Peter. 2 Peter 3,15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother PAUL also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you Quote
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 So that's what Rich is...an Ebionite! I knew he was something, I just didn't know what. LOL Quote
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I knew you were Catholic Gustave, I remember when you came here and posted some last year for a while. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 5, 2011 Moderators Posted July 5, 2011 I kind of thought so. Our house will be full of Catholics this week-end, because my wife's family are coming up from Mexico for a visit. We get along wonderfully. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Sonny Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I kind of thought so. Our house will be full of Catholics this week-end, because my wife's family are coming up from Mexico for a visit. We get along wonderfully. I take it you don't talk religion? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.